D&D (2024) Playtest 6: Spells

[Chaosmancer]

You seem to misread what I said.

I never called anything "unnatural". You seem to be getting that idea from elsewhere?

I never called the Spore Druid "Evil".

I did say that a focus on "blood and guts and death and corpses ... is darkside", which it is.

But you also keep associating "darkside" magic with fiends and aberrations, which ARE evil in the DnD context. If you are suddenly shifting contexts from calling something "black magic" which is understood as "evil, harmful magic" to "creepy magic" then you have to state that or people are going to get confused.

Spore Druids can be a grim focus, death, decay and rot. I agree. I also would say they are very much Necromancy. Which is why I DISAGREE with calling necromancy the black magic of fiends, which is basically a way of saying "the evil magic of evil things" because Spore Druids are not evil.

Beasts are generally Unaligned and incapable of making ethical decisions.

Generally, Fiends are Evil. However, similar to how there is such thing as Evil Celestials, there is also such thing as Good Fiends.

In any case, player characters might have Good reasons for engaging Fiends.

Right, here is the problem. Cosmologically Evil Celestials make more sense in the DnD context, because DnD has decided to have evil gods AND fiends as seperate beings (a dumb decision, but I can't deny it was a decision they made). Yes, very rarely a good fiend exists, but like conjoined twins, it isn't going to be the first thing you think about when presented the concept.

And you are 100% correct that a player might have good reasons for engaging with fiends. Do you know the typical story beats of that? "This person is making a stupid decision". It is the Faustian Bargain, it is the Deal with the Devil. And only two types of good characters do that, the stupid/naive and the desperate. By setting up a space for "this is magic associated with fiends and demons" you are not creating a neutral category, you are creating a category that is filled with evil. And then you double down on that with the Aberrations, which are evil, even if technically they are blue/orange morality.

You, even if only because of the context of DnD, are creating a category that lumps all death and soul magic with two of the most evil forces in existence, and then just to hammer the point home called it "black magic" which is usually just a shorthand for "evil magic"

Precisely.

A particular setting can easily comment on the ethics of Enchantment.

In a Norse setting, it would be tricky to discuss, because it is gender divided. The men of the family have a duty to defend the family, and values of "courage" are existential. But it is generally acceptable for women to engage in mind manipulation.

(That said, in a Norse setting, a man can be respected for their skill at feminine magic even if viewed askance for their shirking masculine responsibilities. Likewise, a woman can be respected for their skill in warfare.)

Personally, I view the use of Enchantment to be more ethical than killing.

Right, a setting. A world. Not the rules itself. Not the category itself.

A Greek-Inspired Setting might state that all Divination magic is evil, because it implies trying to fight against your Fate. But the game rules themselves do not make that distinction. But when you say "Necromancy is the magic of evil beings and evil magic and also evil" as the category itself, you have enforced that morality in the meta-setting. You have stated that, beyond the setting itself, this is seen as evil and bad and wrong.

Again, this may not be your intent, but you have to understand that this is being seen in the context of DnD, which has made some of these assumptions.

To say that Necromancy itself is Evil seems off. To say that Necromancy engages Evil or harmful creatures, and that many necromancers are Evil, would seem more fair.

Necromancy is essentially a weapon, like Fireball is. Perhaps Necromancy is more like modern biological weapons. The ethics of it depend entirely on how one uses them. It is easy to imagine many unethical scenarios − but the same goes for any weapon.



I kinda agree. Evil characters can use "good" magic, like Healing. Good characters can use "evil" magic, like Necromancy. The magic itself is a neutral tool.



That is my main point, when I say "darkside". I also include Fiends and Aberrants, tho.



The magic itself is neutral, but it includes genres like temptation to do Evil, cruelty, insanity, fear, and so on.



Yes, Fiends and Aberrations are "typically" Evil. Celestials are "typically" Good. The exceptions are important.

Whether these creature types are Evil or not, has nothing to do with whether the player characters are Evil or not.

And the rest of this is just covering the same ground. The problem is you are trying to make the exception, the rule.

Yes, Good Fiends can theoretically exist. Just like Cold Fire can theoretically exist. But if I say "it is safe to walk through fire, because it is sometimes cold" that is wrong, because the exception is not the rule. If DnD cosmology made Fiends and Aberrations more like Dwarves and Humans, then you could do this, but it doesn't.

What you seem to want to do is say something to the effect of "evil magic used for good purposes becomes neutral magic" but that IS NOT how DnD presents things. In DnD, evil is a quality. Evil Magic used for Good is still evil magic. And I want to REMOVE the distinction of evil from Necromancy. Being grim or "dark" in terms of being death magic is fine with me, death makes people uncomfortable and for good reason. But I want to avoid associating it with Evil, because then it becomes based off the usage and the setting, not based off of the meta understanding of the design intent.

Take away Fiends, Abberations and the label of "black magic" and then don't call necromancy evil, and then my goal is met. Fiends and Abberrations, along with elementals, celestials and fey then all move into the various planar things, such as conjuration and divination. You can use divination magic to contact a planar being and ask for advice, and that magic is the same regardless of WHO you contact, but who you are contacting changes the context. And that is what matters. Now it is intent that creates whether or not the magic is seen as good or bad, not the magic used itself.

 

[Maxperson]

No use of the word "ward" either, so you are making things up as much as I am, by your own definition.

ROFL no. Abjuration = ward in a spell like that. Would you have preferred that I use protection, which also = ward, or "resistance" which = ward. You pick which one = ward, because they all do.

It just "has resistance". How does it have that resistance? It doesn't say.

Correct. I just does. Resistance = ward, so I used that word. Nothing made up like your transformation the person into ice in order to resist fire.

And sure, right now it says abjuration school, but if you are making it multiple schools why can't it be abjuration evocation or abjuration transmutation to tell how it is doing these things?

It could be those things if WotC wrote them that way. They didn't, so they aren't. You are free to homebrew the spells into evocation or transmutation if you like, though.

Heck, Absorb Elements is also Abjuration and it's resistance it directly called out as capturing the elemental energy, so there is even precedence.

Wrong. That is not precedence for Protection from energy Ehich does not store the elemental energy for later use, being both. I would agree that Absorb Elements would probably be both abjuration and evocation. Unlike Protection from Energy. Now if you house rule protection from energy to absorb and redirect the energy in a similar fashion, it would be both schools. Neither one is in any way transmutation, though.

I mean, you do realize you are trying to argue that RAW supports your homebrew idea? Multiple schools isn't RAW. So if you only want to discuss RAW, then enchantment isn't the only school that can deal mind damage, breaking the idea that Enchantment is the mind damage school.

What the hell are you talking about? I only suggested that they SHOULD do it with multiple schools, not that they do. And I pointed to editions in the past where multiple schools were RAW and worked just fine. At no point did I saw that they were RAW OR that spells were multiple schools despite not saying so, like you are arguing with your transmutation and evocation Protection from Energy spell.

But we were discussing your homebrew, so why does it matter what WoTC would do? Can you only homebrew if that homebrew is created by Jeremy Crawford and stamped with "Official 5e Rules"?

It's not my homebrew. I don't run my personal game that way.

 

[Shardstone]

Arguing about spell schools when they are so ill-defined that WotC keeps flip-flopping every edition what spell is what school is some prime Onion material.

You guys do know that the spell school thing just doesn't matter, right? They don't even have narrative significance in the game beyond necromancy, which in other words means only through cultural momentum.

 

[Yaarel]

Okay, back to this



Well, most folklore characters couldn't fly at all. Meanwhile, now in fantasy, a made being able to levitate or fly is pretty standard.

And I think there is a danger in going too far towards the old ways of thinking about magic and mysticism. Which is where a lot of our disagreements may come from. There are sometimes very good reasons to bundle these different powers together, based on a changed perception of what they mean.



Thematically salient for whom? This is the key point. For example, you wanted to put healing into transmutation, because from a Nordic Myth/Tradition standpoint, that is what healing is, altering the body. But if I were to be looking for healing from a typical American Fantasy standpoint, I'd look at it under evocation, because infusing a body with holy light is the most common way to depict healing.

In many ways, you may be approaching the idea backwards. Certain things are looked for in terms of the spell effect, rather than in terms of the thematics. For example, if I'm looking for a healing spell, such as Greater Restoration, I may not think to look under Abjuration, because to me Abjuration means shields and wards. But if you make a new system and say "Ah, since the best way to cure these conditions is to alter the body, I will make them transmutation"... I'm still not going to be looking there, because thematically Greater Restoration is a divine blessing, and I'd look under the divine spells which you labeled under Celestial Magic which you called Conjuration, which makes sense if I consider it as conjuring the holy forces to cleanse the body.



But the game doesn't make that distinction. A quasi-real illusion might be conjuration, because it is a temporary summon, or it could be enchantment because it is so powerful. And now that you are bringing up Fate manipulation, if someone wanted "Fey Magic" the "appropriate School" is now four different schools. Which is just confusing.



But again, is this the way that the person looking for the spell is imagining their spell working? It certainly isn't how I envision enchanting a sword to cut better.



It proves useful TO YOU with your SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING. That's what I'm trying to get across to you. To me many of the decisions are odd and atonal. Because they don't fit the understanding of magic that is typical in the sources I read and understand.

Okay, back to this



Well, most folklore characters couldn't fly at all. Meanwhile, now in fantasy, a made being able to levitate or fly is pretty standard.

And I think there is a danger in going too far towards the old ways of thinking about magic and mysticism. Which is where a lot of our disagreements may come from. There are sometimes very good reasons to bundle these different powers together, based on a changed perception of what they mean.



Thematically salient for whom? This is the key point. For example, you wanted to put healing into transmutation, because from a Nordic Myth/Tradition standpoint, that is what healing is, altering the body. But if I were to be looking for healing from a typical American Fantasy standpoint, I'd look at it under evocation, because infusing a body with holy light is the most common way to depict healing.

In many ways, you may be approaching the idea backwards. Certain things are looked for in terms of the spell effect, rather than in terms of the thematics. For example, if I'm looking for a healing spell, such as Greater Restoration, I may not think to look under Abjuration, because to me Abjuration means shields and wards. But if you make a new system and say "Ah, since the best way to cure these conditions is to alter the body, I will make them transmutation"... I'm still not going to be looking there, because thematically Greater Restoration is a divine blessing, and I'd look under the divine spells which you labeled under Celestial Magic which you called Conjuration, which makes sense if I consider it as conjuring the holy forces to cleanse the body.



But the game doesn't make that distinction. A quasi-real illusion might be conjuration, because it is a temporary summon, or it could be enchantment because it is so powerful. And now that you are bringing up Fate manipulation, if someone wanted "Fey Magic" the "appropriate School" is now four different schools. Which is just confusing.



But again, is this the way that the person looking for the spell is imagining their spell working? It certainly isn't how I envision enchanting a sword to cut better.



It proves useful TO YOU with your SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING. That's what I'm trying to get across to you. To me many of the decisions are odd and atonal. Because they don't fit the understanding of magic that is typical in the sources I read and understand.

I will try to address your main concerns from both these posts.

Addressing each school grouping.

Dunomancy. Flight, telekinesis, gravity, force, and force damage, seem inherently interconnect. Meanwhile, ether itself, the fifth element, is immaterial force. This grouping includes some of the most powerful and the most utilitarian spells in the game. To me, the force magic is worthwhile to silo as a separate school. Many settings lack features like telekinesis and flight. It is easier to represent them by unusing Dunomancy.

Healing. Healing is inherently body-oriented. Celestial "angels" are inherently not-body oriented. Two completely different thematics. Maybe it was ok to give the Divine Cleric a monopoly over healing in AD&D 1e. But today in 5e, the primary healers include the Bard and Druid, and neither is especially angelic. Associating "necromancy" with Healing is also all kinds of wrong narrative. Transmutation is the sense of altering the body is what Healing is: compare psionic "psychometabolism". Also compare the Clone spell. Compare Regenerate as a method of healing. These are all bodily shapeshifting. That said, I am comfortable with Healing being its own separate spell school. That way, whoever wants Healing can choose the school, and in combination with an other school can flavor it anyway it wants. There are enough Healing spells of various purposes and methods, including True Resurrection to grow a new body, to sustain an entire school at every level.

When a player wants to find a thematically relevant spell, the only way to do this is if each school gives a clear, useful, and accurate description of what kind of spells, exactly, the school includes.

Quasi-real Illusion versus strictly mental Phantasm. Earlier editions made these kinds of distinctions. For example, the quasi-real ones used to be made out of the stuff of the Shadow Plane, which by the time of 5e splits between Fey and Shadow, and is an immaterial ethereal force that can virtually substantiate. Compare also the distinction between "Invisibility" (quasi-real) versus "Psionic Invisibility" (strictly mental). Compare also the psionic Sensory Manipulation. For 5e, the only consequence of subjective Phantasm is whether the few of these kinds spells belong to the school of Illusion or the school of Enchantment. 5e has them be in Illusion, but that deserves a doublecheck, and I am comfortable either way. Whichever way, the spell school itself needs to be clear about why Phantasm belongs to it and not the other school.

Regarding the Fey. They are immaterial spirits who excel at many different kinds of magic. That is kinda the point of what a fey is (faie, fée, fay). Likewise, that is the Norse concept of the elf. Being adept at many schools of magic, is a trope.

 

[Chaosmancer]

ROFL no. Abjuration = ward in a spell like that. Would you have preferred that I use protection, which also = ward, or "resistance" which = ward. You pick which one = ward, because they all do.

I see, so the spell school tells me it is a ward. Which is why Banishmet is a ward, or protection, or resistance... weird. Because I don't really think Banishment does that. Or dispel magic, which is also abjuration.

Or is that what you meant by "a spell like that"? Is it a ward because it is a spell that gives resistance to an element? Well, good thing that is consistent and things like Fire Shield which give you protection from an element by making a shield which is a type of ward is abjuration. Though... huh, doesn't that say evocation? And it creates the ward that grants resistance to the element by summoning the opposite element?

Huh, so maybe you just made that up because it suits your argument, not because shield = ward = resistance therefore abjuration spell

It could be those things if WotC wrote them that way. They didn't, so they aren't. You are free to homebrew the spells into evocation or transmutation if you like, though.

Again, who cares about WoTC when you are homebrewing them to be multiple schools anyways? Do you need WoTCs permission to homebrew?

Wrong. That is not precedence for Protection from energy Ehich does not store the elemental energy for later use, being both. I would agree that Absorb Elements would probably be both abjuration and evocation. Unlike Protection from Energy. Now if you house rule protection from energy to absorb and redirect the energy in a similar fashion, it would be both schools. Neither one is in any way transmutation, though.

What the hell are you talking about? I only suggested that they SHOULD do it with multiple schools, not that they do. And I pointed to editions in the past where multiple schools were RAW and worked just fine. At no point did I saw that they were RAW OR that spells were multiple schools despite not saying so, like you are arguing with your transmutation and evocation Protection from Energy spell.

It's not my homebrew. I don't run my personal game that way.

Wait. You proposed a homebrew rule change, that you don't want, don't use, and have no interest in beyond "but they did it once before?"

Okay? They used to have arcane spell failure if you wore armor, and that was RAW. They stopped doing that. Probably had a good reason. So, since I demonstrated that the multi-school thing could get pretty darn confusing and subjective... that's probably why they stopped doing that thing.

And since you don't want to do that... I guess we are done talking about it? Because it would be kind of silly to argue you want something, then defend it by saying you don't want it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I will try to address your main concerns from both these posts.

Addressing each school grouping.

Dunomancy. Flight, telekinesis, gravity, force, and force damage, seem inherently interconnect. Meanwhile, ether itself, the fifth element, is immaterial force. This grouping includes some of the most powerful and the most utilitarian spells in the game. To me, the force magic is worthwhile to silo as a separate school. Many settings lack features like telekinesis and flight. It is easier to represent them by unusing Dunomancy.

Ether doesn't exist in DnD. Meanwhile, while you could make an argument that force damage and gravity are related... that doesn't always pan out. Outside of the Wildemount Graviturgy spells, none of the gravity effects cause force damage, they tend to do bludgeoning damage.

Meanwhile, there are other ways to achieve flight beyond self-telekinesis or gravity manipulation. And I'm really not sure why summoning gravity couldn't be evocation, the school of summoning energy and forces.

Healing. Healing is inherently body-oriented. Celestial "angels" are inherently not-body oriented. Two completely different thematics. Maybe it was ok to give the Divine Cleric a monopoly over healing in AD&D 1e. But today in 5e, the primary healers include the Bard and Druid, and neither is especially angelic. Associating "necromancy" with Healing is also all kinds of wrong narrative. Transmutation is the sense of altering the body is what Healing is: compare psionic "psychometabolism". Also compare the Clone spell as a method of healing. Compare Regeneration as a method of healing. These are all bodily shapeshifting. That said, I am comfortable with Healing being its own separate spell school. That way, whoever wants Healing can choose the school, and in combination with an other school can flavor it anyway it wants. There are enough Healing spells of various purposes and methods, including True Resurrection to grow a new body, to sustain an entire school at every level.

When a player wants to find a thematically relevant spell, the only way to do this is if each school gives a clear, useful, and accurate description of what kind of spells, exactly, the school includes.

Again, this is entirely your interpretation. Saying that healing is inherently body-oriented may not match with another persons conception of what it means to heal. I know of at least one fantasy work that did healing by enforcing the soul to restore itself, and another that did it by rewinding time.

I'm not saying there is no logic to what you want, but that it does not fit the typical logic associated with the game and its culture. Additionally, no one looks to the school to find the spells. They look for the spells, and generally the school might help them. Or it might not. Most people don't go categorizing by the schools unless they have an ability that specifically calls out the school for mechanical purposes.

Quasi-real Illusion versus strictly mental Phantasm. Earlier editions made these kinds of distinctions. For example, the quasi-real ones used to be made out of the stuff of the Shadow Plane, which by the time of 5e splits between Fey and Shadow, and is an immaterial ethereal force that can virtually substantiate. Compare also the distinction between "Invisibility" (quasi-real) versus "Psionic Invisibility" (strictly mental). Compare also the psionic Sensory Manipulation. For 5e, the only consequence of subjective Phantasm is whether the few of these kinds spells belong to the school of Illusion or the school of Enchantment. 5e has them be in Illusion, but that deserves a doublecheck, and I am comfortable either way. Whichever way, the spell school itself needs to be clear about why Phantasm belongs to it and not the other school.

But, as you admit, much of this is based on an older edition's interpretation of a cosmology that no longer exists. There is no ethereal force of shadow stuff substantiating in DnD 5e. There is also no distinction between invisibility that is quasi-real and invisibility that is strictly mental in the 5e rule set. The spell is invisibility, it turns you and others invisible. It does not state how. I had a character once who did so by stepping inside the wind.

Again, I'm not saying "you are wrong" I'm saying "that is one specific, idiosyncratic version of things" which can cause issues if your specific view on how it works isn't shared.

Regarding the Fey. They are immaterial spirits who excel at many different kinds of magic. That is kinda the point of what a fey is (faie, fée, fay). Likewise, that is the Norse concept of the elf. Being adept at many schools of magic, is a trope.

Except they aren't immaterial in DnD. And you specifically called out Dunomancy as Fey magic in your original, which kind of breaks down if the Fey are good at multiple types of magic.

It is far less confusing to remove the specific beings from the spell lists. There is no magic of fiends, no magic of celestial, no magic of fey, instead if someone refers to "fey magic" they are likely refering to "magic done by a fey being" rather than some specific magic a mortal practitioner can do that is intimately tied to the existence of the Fey.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait. You proposed a homebrew rule change, that you don't want, don't use, and have no interest in beyond "but they did it once before?"

The bold is true. And if I don't use it, it's not "my homebrew."

You complained about the mind spike(or whatever it's called) being unclear with the school chosen and I proposed a solution that they used before. Not sure why it blew up this large when it was such a simple little thing.

 

[Yaarel]

Ether doesn't exist in DnD. Meanwhile, while you could make an argument that force damage and gravity are related... that doesn't always pan out. Outside of the Wildemount Graviturgy spells, none of the gravity effects cause force damage, they tend to do bludgeoning damage.

The "Ethereal Plane" is ether in the same way that the "Plane of Fire" is fire. Unlike the other elements, ether is an immaterial substance. Ether is the fifth element.

The Force damage type is peculiar to "forces", such as gravity. (But also nuclear forces relating to the Disintegration spell.) This damage type is extreme force that typically concentrates in a small area, such as Magic Missile. When gravity causes damage from falling, the force itself isnt strong enough to deal damage, but impact deals the Bludgeoning damage. A spell like Feather Fall would be Dunomancy to evade the gravitational pull.

As far as I can tell, every spell that inflicts Force damage becomes, by definition, Dunomancy. The only ambiguity are spells that are force constructs that deal Force damage. For these a decision needs to be made to clearly distinguish between the Illusion school that creates quasi-real objects versus the Dunomancy school that manipulates force.

Meanwhile, there are other ways to achieve flight beyond self-telekinesis or gravity manipulation. And I'm really not sure why summoning gravity couldn't be evocation, the school of summoning energy and forces.

Of course, there are different methods for flying. Wings are bodily shapeshifting (Transmutation). One can effectively hover, glide, and sail via elemental air (Evocation). When I say "flight", I mean the ignore-gravity variety of flight. Actually, I exactly mean the Fly spell, but keep the door open for other spells like it. Sometimes I refer to this as telekinetic flight.

Again, this is entirely your interpretation. Saying that healing is inherently body-oriented may not match with another persons conception of what it means to heal. I know of at least one fantasy work that did healing by enforcing the soul to restore itself, and another that did it by rewinding time.

Healing, by definition, is altering the body. Not sure how one can dispute this.

Regarding various methodologies to effect the change, each concept can be considered. The "soul" healing relates to ki and psionic psychometabolism, thus is still identical bodily shapeshifting, whence Transmutation.

However, the manipulation of time, whether the past or a parallel timeline, would be Divination − and might come with its own kinds of special considerations or side effects, perhaps such as lacking memory about recent events.

I'm not saying there is no logic to what you want, but that it does not fit the typical logic associated with the game and its culture.

That might be the best reason to make Healing its own spell school. Then a player who wants bodily healing themes, can include it with shapeshifting magic. A player who wants miraculous faith healing, can include it with Conjuration magic. A person who wants life-and-death themes can include it with Necromancy, and so on. Siloing out the Healing into its own category is probably the most helpful for the most number of players.

Additionally, no one looks to the school to find the spells.

Heh, that is because, so far, the D&D official spell schools are inconsistent meaningless mishmash.

But if the schools become actually informative categories, players will use schools to build their character concepts.

They look for the spells, and generally the school might help them. Or it might not. Most people don't go categorizing by the schools unless they have an ability that specifically calls out the school for mechanical purposes.

The schools and the school descriptions need tweaking, but they can be very useful to players.

Just like having a taxonomy system that is clear and useful can help a person find various related animals, having a spell school sytem that is clear and useful can help a person find various related spells.

Potentially, a game can have hundreds − even thousands! − of spells. There must be a functional spell school system to track all of these.

But, as you admit, much of this is based on an older edition's interpretation of a cosmology that no longer exists. There is no ethereal force of shadow stuff substantiating in DnD 5e.

Yeah. 4e remixed Shadow and Ethereal to create Fey and Shadow. The 5e kept Fey and Shadow and returned Ether. They are all intertwining.

There is also no distinction between invisibility that is quasi-real and invisibility that is strictly mental in the 5e rule set.

Yet. Wait till the spell comes.

The Phantasmal Force spell keeps the tradition of being strictly mental and personally subjective. This spell in particular could be the Enchantment school. And if not. There needs to be a why not.

The spell is invisibility, it turns you and others invisible. It does not state how. I had a character once who did so by stepping inside the wind.

I think that is fine. The main point is, this Invisibility spell is objectively real.

Again, I'm not saying "you are wrong" I'm saying "that is one specific, idiosyncratic version of things" which can cause issues if your specific view on how it works isn't shared.

I take it for granted that different settings can and will (and should) flavor the cosmology in a way that is appropriate for the setting, including its magic theory.

So the most useful approach is to group spells into the most useful units. Then each setting and each character can build the groups in ways appropriate to the concept.

Except they aren't immaterial in DnD. And you specifically called out Dunomancy as Fey magic in your original, which kind of breaks down if the Fey are good at multiple types of magic.

The ghosts of the Shadowfell and the spirits of the Feywild are immaterial. They are spirit worlds. They are not part of the "Material" Plane because they lack matter.

It is far less confusing to remove the specific beings from the spell lists. There is no magic of fiends, no magic of celestial, no magic of fey, instead if someone refers to "fey magic" they are likely refering to "magic done by a fey being" rather than some specific magic a mortal practitioner can do that is intimately tied to the existence of the Fey.

Nevertheless, themes of the cosmology and the themes of the spells often relate to each other.

 

[Shardstone]

I never explained why I like Elden Ring spell schools so much. Let me cook.

Look at this image. Every single image here is a different school of magic in Elden Ring. Many of them are similar, which is on purpose, because it shows how one magic study evolves into new magic studies over time, giving you a great lever to manipulate arcane events and history in your world.

All magic in Elden Ring is split into one of three categories: Sorcery (based on Intelligence), Incantations (based on Faith), and everything else (different blends of Intelligence, Faith, and sometimes other stats like Strength or Arcane). These three categories are mutable; we usually have Sorcery, but sometimes we have Miracles and Pyromancy instead of the others, and so on and so forth.

By taking all 500 spells and splitting them into some 25+ spell schools based on theme, you give DMs far more control over the magic in their world. Now you can pick and choose which spell schools to introduce into your world, you have more narrative space to flavor these spell schools into different things, and you can theorycraft new spells or new spell schools pretty easily. It'd basically be like giving people a bunch of legos, only the legos retain the inherent variability D&D magic is known for.

Elden Ring is my specific reference for this because a lot of people half-ass the amount of spell schools. They don't play the idea to the hilt, really show what all that concept can do. Elden Ring does. The sigils become factions become history become contemporary events. When you have so many pieces to inspire you, you can build ideas and stories quicker, start with a higher level of detail than you may otherwise, and really add a personal flare to the magic that represents your world. All this because you need a lot of these things. A lot.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The bold is true. And if I don't use it, it's not "my homebrew."

You complained about the mind spike(or whatever it's called) being unclear with the school chosen and I proposed a solution that they used before. Not sure why it blew up this large when it was such a simple little thing.

I wasn't complaining about it, I was using it as an example to point out that the idea that all of the spell schools are clear and distinct with no overlap was wrong. You then proposed this multi-school solution, and when I tried showing why that could be confusing for people... you said I was clearly wrong because none of those spells are written that way.

"You could write spells with multiple schools"
"But this spell with multiple schools could be confusing"
"Why are you writing that spell with multiple schools? It isn't written that way."